On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:15 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Phil Hord <phil.hord@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:45 PM Tassilo Horn <tsdh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Or that popping the stash again would also restore the MERGING state. > >> > > >> > This would make more sense: the stash records that part of the state, > >> > and then we make it available again later when the stash is applied. > >> > However, that feature doesn't exist yet. > >> > >> Too bad. > > > > Consider also what happens when `git stash apply` results in a merge > > conflict because of differences between your current index and the one > > you had when you originally saved the stash. This results in the > > usual merge conflict markers that then need to be cleaned up. > > I agree with you that allowing a stash while a merge is in progress > will introduce many unpleasant corner cases the users wouldn't want > to deal with. We certainly do prevent "git stash push" from running > when the index is still unmerged (which is a sign that a mergy > operation (like pull, rebase, merge, am -3, cherry-pick and revert > that stops due to a conflict in the middle) is in progress), but > once the end user resolves the conflicts in the index (either > manually, or having the rerere.autoupdate feature in effect), such a > sign of mergy operation still in progress that "git stash" currently > uses will be gone. We should teach "git stash push" to pay > attention to other such signs like MERGE_HEAD etc. and stop before > creating a stash (and also do the same to "git stash pop/apply"). > > THanks. I should have read the rest of the emails before responding. Once again, you manage to say roughly what I was thinking, but do so both more concisely and more eloquently.
